4231 vs Deep 4231

[allyc31]

Morning all, 

what is everyones feelings on a 4-2-3-1 with a standard double pivot vs its deep counterpart? 

I presume the deep, depending on roles, will give greater solidity at the expense of penetration up front (though the formation still has the 4 top players doing their thing so maybe not). 

Does anyone have any strong feelings on either? 

I realise that player roles form a massive part of this debate and its something I haven't really decided on as of right now (If I were to go with the deep version). 

Cheers all

Hope you're well

[DarJ]

I've played with both and had success with both however the issue I had with the deep was that it's not easy to bring the ball out and you almost always have to be more direct (I don't mean that you need direct passing) because you are starting so deep if you take your time to pass the ball around the defending team will already be in their defensive position. Another issue is striker isolation.

Like I said, I won the polish League twice with it so it's definitely possible.

With the standard 4231 the biggest weakness is counter attacks but it's easy to manage if you're a good team

[allyc31]

Interesting point about having to go direct due to their defensive positioning. Did you try putting both the DMC's on Support perhaps? Or even a Segundo Valante on Attack. 

Ive always been a single pivot guy in FM but in 21, Ive found I've really enjoyed using the two so now curious about the dynamics or each variant

[DarJ]

I used the Volante on attack and DM on support

[zabyl]

4231 deep

Main advantage: 2 "DM"s give more attacking freedom to "FB"s to play as WB/CWB. Secure defence.

Main disadvantage: Space between AMC line and DMC line. Harder to win the ball forward.

 

4231

Main advantage: 2 "CM"s can support high pressing. Stronger attacking football.

Main disadvantage: Space between "CM"s and defensive line. Counter-attacks.

[zabyl]

44 dakika önce, DarJ said:

it's not easy to bring the ball out and you almost always have to be more direct (I don't mean that you need direct passing) because you are starting so deep if you take your time to pass the ball around the defending team will already be in their defensive position.

4231 deep needs pacey wingbacks. I don't know what kind of fullbacks you used but If you don't use players like those, this issue can happen. Because they are hardworkers of 4231 deep.

 

48 dakika önce, DarJ said:

Another issue is striker isolation.

This can be a role/duty issue. Because both formations have same numbers up front.

[Andrew Marines]

Maybe one dm and one CM? like a dlp on dm position to get a good defense and a CM on support to stay a bit higher

Edited September 11, 2021 by Andrew Marines

[DarJ]

6 minutes ago, zabyl said:

This can be a role/duty issue. Because both formations have same numbers up front.

Yes but because you have 2 DMs the AMC would have to come deeper to link play but at the end I was able to fix things but overall I wasn't happy with it and I got better CBs so I switched to the 4231 standard

[Contexx]

I've been using 4231 deep in it's various forms for the past few iterations of FM, to the point that to me, the setup for 4231 or even 433 looks a bit odd at first.  The SV is by far my favorite role in the game, and is really the key to the systems. I personally find the variety of roles in the DMC strata to offer a lot of flexibility, with plenty of space to play in.

For example, I'm currently playing as Genoa, and we are by far the best team in Italy, though our reputation is not yet high enough to strike fear in the top tier CL teams. Against the dreaded 3322 with wingbacks and quick forwards I could drop my DL and force the opposition to come at me. My DMC pair being a DM(S) and SV(s) offers plenty of security, and they do indeed get forward.  Of course, it's dependent on who is in front of them - if I want to really overrun the opposition's midfield, I'll use an SS or AM(a) , which essentially clears the way for the Volante to do his thing, even if not on Attack duty.  Otherwise, the natural layering you get from those duties and positions can be very difficult for the AI to deal with. As an aside, I played a CL semi final match against Barca, and went very aggressive, giving them no chance without having to sacrifice too much of my own strength down the flanks - there is a lot to be said for the security of having two deep and aggressive midfielders.

 

In my endless tinkering, I often get caught up with looking at the tactic screen and losing sight of the fact that a) It's my defensive shape and b) it's a snapshot of a vary dynamic system.  For example, dropping your AMC to the CM strata can actually end up being very aggressive and potent with the right player.  Not to mention the deep system can offer great protection for the regista or dlp against more aggressive opponents, or force the more organized defenses to actually come out.

Finally, I fully agree about the need for hard working attacking fullbacks, though I find it to be important to resist the temptation to make them too eager to get up the pitch. For example, in my system, on the right flank, the one with the Volante, I use a FB(s) and a W(s).  If I used a wingback, he would end up getting up the pitch too early and trying to dominate things too much, taking much of the spotlight from the Volante, and creating a bit of a cull-de-sac against packed defenses.  As an FB(s), he hangs back, gets involved later, and not only ensures the flank is solid, but is very difficult for defenses to deal with as he has so much more space to pick up steam and find the right cross.  The right volante is able to create this kind of space in a very unique way, even if on support duty.

As for forwards being isolated, I can't imagine it being that much of an issue, even if not using an AMC.

 

[allyc31]

3 hours ago, Contexx said:

I've been using 4231 deep in it's various forms for the past few iterations of FM, to the point that to me, the setup for 4231 or even 433 looks a bit odd at first.  The SV is by far my favorite role in the game, and is really the key to the systems. I personally find the variety of roles in the DMC strata to offer a lot of flexibility, with plenty of space to play in.

For example, I'm currently playing as Genoa, and we are by far the best team in Italy, though our reputation is not yet high enough to strike fear in the top tier CL teams. Against the dreaded 3322 with wingbacks and quick forwards I could drop my DL and force the opposition to come at me. My DMC pair being a DM(S) and SV(s) offers plenty of security, and they do indeed get forward.  Of course, it's dependent on who is in front of them - if I want to really overrun the opposition's midfield, I'll use an SS or AM(a) , which essentially clears the way for the Volante to do his thing, even if not on Attack duty.  Otherwise, the natural layering you get from those duties and positions can be very difficult for the AI to deal with. As an aside, I played a CL semi final match against Barca, and went very aggressive, giving them no chance without having to sacrifice too much of my own strength down the flanks - there is a lot to be said for the security of having two deep and aggressive midfielders.

 

In my endless tinkering, I often get caught up with looking at the tactic screen and losing sight of the fact that a) It's my defensive shape and b) it's a snapshot of a vary dynamic system.  For example, dropping your AMC to the CM strata can actually end up being very aggressive and potent with the right player.  Not to mention the deep system can offer great protection for the regista or dlp against more aggressive opponents, or force the more organized defenses to actually come out.

Finally, I fully agree about the need for hard working attacking fullbacks, though I find it to be important to resist the temptation to make them too eager to get up the pitch. For example, in my system, on the right flank, the one with the Volante, I use a FB(s) and a W(s).  If I used a wingback, he would end up getting up the pitch too early and trying to dominate things too much, taking much of the spotlight from the Volante, and creating a bit of a cull-de-sac against packed defenses.  As an FB(s), he hangs back, gets involved later, and not only ensures the flank is solid, but is very difficult for defenses to deal with as he has so much more space to pick up steam and find the right cross.  The right volante is able to create this kind of space in a very unique way, even if on support duty.

As for forwards being isolated, I can't imagine it being that much of an issue, even if not using an AMC.

 

This is a great write up, thank you!

One thing I’m curious about, does the game treat the SV as a playmaker eg is it a ball magnet? 

[mikcheck]

2 minutos atrás, allyc31 disse:

This is a great write up, thank you!

One thing I’m curious about, does the game treat the SV as a playmaker eg is it a ball magnet? 

It doesn't, SV is not a playmaker 

[Cleon]

I wrote about this topic extensively a fair few years ago.

The images are missing in the thread though. But worry not as I still have them on my hard drive. So if you want to read my thoughts on the system, you can do so in the following link (all images included)

Part One https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o36GcU81BHmtY88DC9SnEetWJ7aXaBiCntOCJ8AGZOE/edit?usp=sharing

Part Two https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GT64VjEj53M3E64Yw2eFQSfLOSiJY42jL0N-2BDLyIM/edit?usp=sharing

Part Three https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P4vvDtXSyYkO2F8d8rdm0B3FC50hH-NG8kltkchB7-8/edit?usp=sharing

Part Four https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b4wMBJWixYOjp2NWglCNzepQ5DkZ9FdelziYwbCOB7c/edit?usp=sharing

It's a lot to take in and a lot of reading but I cover both the normal and deep version in depth. You'll not find a better comprehensive guide to the 4231 in general in my opinion.

[mikcheck]

@Cleon what about a deep 4231 with the AMC but the wingers placed as MR/ML, would is still be effective? 

[Cleon]

6 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

@Cleon what about a deep 4231 with the AMC but the wingers placed as MR/ML, would is still be effective? 

Read the articles then make your mind up

[glengarry224]

Good stuff.  I like to train both so that I can rotate them depending upon opposition or game situations. 

As someone else wrote, you can also drop the AMC into the CM strata to create a 433.  The same type of creative player can usually play both AP(s)/AM(s) as a #10 or alternatively AP(s)/RPM as a #8 (or Mez, if you have 2 CMs: a Free-8 as KDB calls himself), so I also like to train an alternate tactic 4-3-3, even with 2 DMs, which can be more effective in attack if your opponent has a good defensive DM who can take your AMC out of the match, because your creative AMC/CM will have more space and also it will really free up your wingbacks to go crazy, especially if one of your DMs is HB(d).

 

[Jrddrkly]

1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

@Cleon what about a deep 4231 with the AMC but the wingers placed as MR/ML, would is still be effective? 

I might be completely wrong here and hopefully if I am I hope someone corrects me but I play a 4231 deep and I switch the positioning of my wingers depending on the situation/opposition. For example I would say my base would be with AMR/L but if for example I feel like I'm getting overwhelmed down the wings I will drop either one or both of my wingers into the Midfield strata if I feel it is something that could help me in that situation. Same goes for my AMC could drop to a MC. Everything for me is situational, I could even end up with all three in the midfield strata.

What I'm trying to say if that for me I find that where I position my players depends on how I want to play, if I want to be more aggressive then they'll be in the AM strata, less aggressive then into the Midfield strata.

Again could be wrong don't claim to be a genius when it comes to tactics (or anything else :D)

[allyc31]

13 hours ago, Cleon said:

I wrote about this topic extensively a fair few years ago.

The images are missing in the thread though. But worry not as I still have them on my hard drive. So if you want to read my thoughts on the system, you can do so in the following link (all images included)

Part One https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o36GcU81BHmtY88DC9SnEetWJ7aXaBiCntOCJ8AGZOE/edit?usp=sharing

Part Two https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GT64VjEj53M3E64Yw2eFQSfLOSiJY42jL0N-2BDLyIM/edit?usp=sharing

Part Three https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P4vvDtXSyYkO2F8d8rdm0B3FC50hH-NG8kltkchB7-8/edit?usp=sharing

Part Four https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b4wMBJWixYOjp2NWglCNzepQ5DkZ9FdelziYwbCOB7c/edit?usp=sharing

It's a lot to take in and a lot of reading but I cover both the normal and deep version in depth. You'll not find a better comprehensive guide to the 4231 in general in my opinion.

Cheers pal! 
 

thats this mornings reading sorted 

[alerosso]

@Cleon thank you for the great read!

[Cleon]

6 minutes ago, alerosso said:

@Cleon thank you for the great read!

Glad you enjoyed it

[neptune'sblue]

On 11.09.2021 at 20:50, Cleon said:

I wrote about this topic extensively a fair few years ago.

The images are missing in the thread though. But worry not as I still have them on my hard drive. So if you want to read my thoughts on the system, you can do so in the following link (all images included)

Part One https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o36GcU81BHmtY88DC9SnEetWJ7aXaBiCntOCJ8AGZOE/edit?usp=sharing

Part Two https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GT64VjEj53M3E64Yw2eFQSfLOSiJY42jL0N-2BDLyIM/edit?usp=sharing

Part Three https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P4vvDtXSyYkO2F8d8rdm0B3FC50hH-NG8kltkchB7-8/edit?usp=sharing

Part Four https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b4wMBJWixYOjp2NWglCNzepQ5DkZ9FdelziYwbCOB7c/edit?usp=sharing

It's a lot to take in and a lot of reading but I cover both the normal and deep version in depth. You'll not find a better comprehensive guide to the 4231 in general in my opinion.

I hope I'm not changing the subject. I was playing with deep 4-2-3-1 before I read the thread. I have a tactic almost like in Cleon's article. but I'm not sure about the team instructions. I have to make a short pass from the defence, but whenever I do that, the opposing team immediately gegenpress and mistake. Sorry for my English. I have a pretty bad english. I just can't decide how to give a team instruction in this system. Thank you for your help.

my tactic

note : instead of krunic there is Rice

[coach vahid]

il y a 16 minutes, neptune'sblue a dit :

I hope I'm not changing the subject. I was playing with deep 4-2-3-1 before I read the thread. I have a tactic almost like in Cleon's article. but I'm not sure about the team instructions. I have to make a short pass from the defence, but whenever I do that, the opposing team immediately gegenpress and mistake. Sorry for my English. I have a pretty bad english. I just can't decide how to give a team instruction in this system. Thank you for your help.

my tactic

note : instead of krunic there is Rice

Did you try the WBat behind the IF, the FBsu behind the Winger and the volante instead of the DLP?

For the team instruction,i will try the lower line of engagement, it will make more space to attack and compress the midfield...

But it's a just an opinion and a theory.

[zabyl]

2 saat önce, neptune'sblue said:

I hope I'm not changing the subject. I was playing with deep 4-2-3-1 before I read the thread. I have a tactic almost like in Cleon's article. but I'm not sure about the team instructions. I have to make a short pass from the defence, but whenever I do that, the opposing team immediately gegenpress and mistake. Sorry for my English. I have a pretty bad english. I just can't decide how to give a team instruction in this system. Thank you for your help.

 

I marked potential problematic things. But perhaps changing them may disable the game you want instead of offering a solution. So the best way to take advice without being misled is; starting your own thread with proper info about what you want from your team and what subject you struggle more.

 

[neptune'sblue]

21 saat önce, coach vahid said:

Did you try the WBat behind the IF, the FBsu behind the Winger and the volante instead of the DLP?

For the team instruction,i will try the lower line of engagement, it will make more space to attack and compress the midfield...

But it's a just an opinion and a theory.

I actually tried something similar to this. I tried WB-su instead of fb-su. Defense on the left flank was bad. I tried dm-su but found that they conflicted with am-su. Am I playing counter-attacking football according to your advice?

19 saat önce, zabyl said:

 

I marked potential problematic things. But perhaps changing them may disable the game you want instead of offering a solution. So the best way to take advice without being misled is; starting your own thread with proper info about what you want from your team and what subject you struggle more.

 

Would you suggest starting a separate thread? Sorry if I'm changing the subject. I'll open a new thread if I ask more questions about it. I was just wondering about tactical instructions in a deep formation. In this type of formation, when the team is without instructions; I see counter attack football. I just want to ask can we play this style? Or can we play games like possesion with this lineup? I don't have a specific game plan, I just want to score few goals and win. I chose this lineup because the AI was constantly hitting me with mezzela and AM. I have no idea about the instructions.

[zabyl]

1 saat önce, neptune'sblue said:

Would you suggest starting a separate thread? Sorry if I'm changing the subject. I'll open a new thread if I ask more questions about it. I was just wondering about tactical instructions in a deep formation. In this type of formation, when the team is without instructions; I see counter attack football. I just want to ask can we play this style? Or can we play games like possesion with this lineup? I don't have a specific game plan, I just want to score few goals and win. I chose this lineup because the AI was constantly hitting me with mezzela and AM. I have no idea about the instructions.

I think I was misunderstood. You can get helpful interpretations and explanations with starting your own thread.

[Contexx]

7 hours ago, neptune'sblue said:

I actually tried something similar to this. I tried WB-su instead of fb-su. Defense on the left flank was bad. I tried dm-su but found that they conflicted with am-su. Am I playing counter-attacking football according to your advice?

Would you suggest starting a separate thread? Sorry if I'm changing the subject. I'll open a new thread if I ask more questions about it. I was just wondering about tactical instructions in a deep formation. In this type of formation, when the team is without instructions; I see counter attack football. I just want to ask can we play this style? Or can we play games like possesion with this lineup? I don't have a specific game plan, I just want to score few goals and win. I chose this lineup because the AI was constantly hitting me with mezzela and AM. I have no idea about the instructions.

 

You could start a separate thread.  I've used this formation for quite a few seasons as my team evolved, and the conflicts you're finding seem to be the opposite from my own interpretation. It could be player dependent, but when you're using a DLP alongside a Volante, you need to think about what happens when the ball is lost. With the wingback bombing forward, there is a high chance that you could be hit on the break with very little cover. The Volante is going to be all over the place, and particularly going "where the action is", while the DLP naturally gravitates towards the ball. I personally prefer to use a standard DMC(s), with abilities and traits of a playmaker - ie someone I would trust to create. 

Also, one of the compelling things about a deeper formation like this is the chance to provide a second or even third volley of attacks should things break down or your team starts camping against more organized opposition. Here, the wingback role on the right, coupled with the winger on support may not be as effective as a speedy and attack minded fullback on support.  From my observation, withe wingback getting up the pitch too early you end up overly commited to that part of the pitch - it can open up space elsewhere or allow for some great crossing or overlapping opportunities, but since you're using a DLP and since you're that deep, why not play it more patiently, let the build-up happen in a more measured way, and chances are, the fullback will get involved just as the opposition defense is ready to break down.

I'm very poor at uploading videos and graphics, but this happened to me in the CL final against Pochettino's ManCity. Of course they have a killer squad, and of course they had Milenkovic-Savic as a mezzala and Raheem "overpowered" Sterling on the flank.  If I had a DLP on that side, Savic would have eaten him alive, and Sterling would have destroyed my wingback.  Instead, my DMC with his "dictates tempo" preferred move still got involved in the build up, and my vanilla winger did his thing, and just as the attack was breaking down, the fullback made a run from deep to deliver the most conventional of crosses for the winning goal.

Start a new thread because this formation doesn't get nearly as much love as it should on the forum, and the possibilities for space distribution are endless, regardless of the type of team you have.

[Lesterfan_Cambiasso]

On 11/09/2021 at 11:49, zabyl said:

4231 deep

Main advantage: 2 "DM"s give more attacking freedom to "FB"s to play as WB/CWB. Secure defence.

Main disadvantage: Space between AMC line and DMC line. Harder to win the ball forward.

 

4231

Main advantage: 2 "CM"s can support high pressing. Stronger attacking football.

Main disadvantage: Space between "CM"s and defensive line. Counter-attacks.

Have a question if its ok, as i agree with your assertions.

Assuming you were to use a 4231 deep system, in terms of "linking" the defensive midfield area to the attacking midfield area, would either of the following options be viable?

1) In the attacking midfield position, using an attacking midfielder that has a PPM to "come deep for the ball" but a PI to "hold up ball", which can combine with the two midfielders from the DM positions behind him?

2) Using "overlap left" or "overlap right" on one of the wide attacking players to encourage him to hold onto the ball longer to give time for the full back behind him and midfielders to come forwards?

 Im thinking of using the following set up as a 4-2-3-1 deep, and wondered about its merits with the two options i mentionned:

 

----------------------------------------PF (A)

IF (A)-------------------------AM (S) or TQ (A)---------------------------W(S)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------DM (S) or DLP (S)-------------SV (S)

WB (S)-------------------CB (D)--------------(CB (D)---------------------FB (S)

----------------------------------------SK (D)

 

 

The idea is to use a deeper double pivot to provide stability in front of the back four and against the counter attack, mixed with a right sided overload to release the player on the left side to be the main scorer along with the pressing forward.

Would be interested in your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

[alerosso]

@Lesterfan_Cambiasso I think the overlap will be quite difficult with your current setup. If you want to overlap on the left, an IFa is probably too attacking to make it happen so maybe an IFs/IW would be better. If you want to overlap on the right a FBs might be too conservative of a role and won't push much past your AMR winger so at least a FBa if not a WBs/a might be needed.

Edited September 14, 2021 by alerosso

[Lesterfan_Cambiasso]

3 minutes ago, alerosso said:

@Lesterfan_Cambiasso I think the overlap will be quite difficult with your current setup. If you want to overlap on the left, an IFa is probably too attacking to make it happen so maybe an IFs/IW would be better. If you want to overlap on the right a FBs might be too conservative of a role and won't push much past your AMR winger so at least a FBa if not a WBs/a might be needed.

I hink you are probably right there, it was an idea really to get someone to hold onto the ball to allow support to get higher up the field. I havent checked what PIs you can put on winger and inverted wingers, but there may be an option to ask them to hold onto the ball perhaps?

[alerosso]

1 minuto fa, Lesterfan_Cambiasso ha scritto:

I hink you are probably right there, it was an idea really to get someone to hold onto the ball to allow support to get higher up the field. I havent checked what PIs you can put on winger and inverted wingers, but there may be an option to ask them to hold onto the ball perhaps?

Not sure either I can't check now. But I think you still need a more attacking role than a FBs - or a less attacking role than IFa - to make the overlap happen regularly

[zabyl]

5 dakika önce, Lesterfan_Cambiasso said:

1) In the attacking midfield position, using an attacking midfielder that has a PPM to "come deep for the ball" but a PI to "hold up ball", which can combine with the two midfielders from the DM positions behind him?

2) Using "overlap left" or "overlap right" on one of the wide attacking players to encourage him to hold onto the ball longer to give time for the full back behind him and midfielders to come forwards?

Both of them are nice ideas theoretically. I propose trying them in game to see if they work as you think or not for your team.

 

17 dakika önce, Lesterfan_Cambiasso said:

Im thinking of using the following set up as a 4-2-3-1 deep, and wondered about its merits with the two options i mentionned:

 

----------------------------------------PF (A)

IF (A)-------------------------AM (S) or TQ (A)---------------------------W(S)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------DM (S) or DLP (S)-------------SV (S)

WB (S)-------------------CB (D)--------------(CB (D)---------------------FB (S)

----------------------------------------SK (D)

 

 

The idea is to use a deeper double pivot to provide stability in front of the back four and against the counter attack, mixed with a right sided overload to release the player on the left side to be the main scorer along with the pressing forward.

Would be interested in your thoughts.

Looks nicely balanced. Try and see if this can provide plans you have in your mind.

[Overmars]

The deep version of 4-2-3-1 looks and feels more realistic to me. I also like the versatility of roles for DMs. The only things I don't like: Not having spots for natural CMs and seeing those red/orange squares on the tactics screen -- but these are both game features that don't have much impact on actual outcomes.

My preference:

DLP(d) on one side with a wingback and a SV on the other side with a FB or IWB. I never quite know what to do with the AMC, but that's true of every AMC formation in every version of FM.

[zabyl]

4 saat önce, Overmars said:

I never quite know what to do with the AMC, but that's true of every AMC formation in every version of FM.

You can prefer a support role for AMC if you don’t use a direct/fast approach. Deep midfielders & full backs need more passing option and time to move forward for organised attacking plays.

Edited September 15, 2021 by zabyl

[mikcheck]

I wonder if counter press would make sense in a deep formation like this? That would make the team a bit more reactive without possession.

[Jack722]

6 hours ago, Overmars said:

The deep version of 4-2-3-1 looks and feels more realistic to me. I also like the versatility of roles for DMs. The only things I don't like: Not having spots for natural CMs and seeing those red/orange squares on the tactics screen -- but these are both game features that don't have much impact on actual outcomes.

My preference:

DLP(d) on one side with a wingback and a SV on the other side with a FB or IWB. I never quite know what to do with the AMC, but that's true of every AMC formation in every version of FM.

Yeah I basically only ever use a 4231DM now instead of 4231CM. feels much more like an irl 4231 if you watch full matches. 

Also the only way to get Natural width in these formations is to have attacking fullbacks. So it makes much more sense to have a double pivot to cover the wingbacks.

[Johnny Ace]

On 15/09/2021 at 11:26, Jack722 said:

Yeah I basically only ever use a 4231DM now instead of 4231CM. feels much more like an irl 4231 if you watch full matches. 

Also the only way to get Natural width in these formations is to have attacking fullbacks. So it makes much more sense to have a double pivot to cover the wingbacks.

What style of football do you play with yours?

I've been having a think about this shape, it's one I've never stuck with & always use a short passing game with 2 CM's usually.

I'm guessing short passing isn't a great option with two DM's? You could get caught deep though that could be my assumption bias 

[Jack722]

4 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

What style of football do you play with yours?

I've been having a think about this shape, it's one I've never stuck with & always use a short passing game with 2 CM's usually.

I'm guessing short passing isn't a great option with two DM's? You could get caught deep though that could be my assumption bias 

I think the big gap and red squares scare people when thinking about a 4231DM. Personally wouldn't use two defensive DM's though. 

Really it's not that bad, I don't really adjust anything when I use it.  You don't even need CM's to advance up the field either, because the front 4 will occupy the half spaces and centre. One supporting DM does a really good job of progressing the ball and linking with the CAM imo

 

[Johnny Ace]

36 minutes ago, Jack722 said:

I think the big gap and red squares scare people when thinking about a 4231DM. Personally wouldn't use two defensive DM's though. 

Really it's not that bad, I don't really adjust anything when I use it.  You don't even need CM's to advance up the field either, because the front 4 will occupy the half spaces and centre. One supporting DM does a really good job of progressing the ball and linking with the CAM imo

 

I've put one together to try out in a holiday save with Bayern, it has 2 DMs, one on Defend & one on Support with default passing So far I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference 

[zabyl]

3 saat önce, Johnny Ace said:

I've put one together to try out in a holiday save with Bayern, it has 2 DMs, one on Defend & one on Support with default passing So far I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference 

I don't recommend using a defend duty DM on 4-2-3-1 deep. You don't need that if your team is not one of the weaker sides on that level. Use a sitter role instead of defend duty. That player will already be deep enough to provide defensive cover.

[Johnny Ace]

3 hours ago, zabyl said:

I don't recommend using a defend duty DM on 4-2-3-1 deep. You don't need that if your team is not one of the weaker sides on that level. Use a sitter role instead of defend duty. That player will already be deep enough to provide defensive cover.

A DM(D) is a sitter role isn't it?

[Halbraum]

1 saat önce, Johnny Ace said:

A DM(D) is a sitter role isn't it?

I guess he meant roles like DLP(s) or DM(s) with hold position PI.  A defend duty player is insufficient to provide attacking support enough in a 4-2-3-1 Deep imo. 

[zabyl]

2 saat önce, Johnny Ace said:

5 saat önce, zabyl said:

 

A DM(D) is a sitter role isn't it?

You can use support roles with hold position if you want a sitter on DM. I personally don’t use a sitter role on one of the two DM slots for increasing forward support. My choices are usually DMs with SVs or REGs.

 

4-2-3-1 deep is a bit different than 4-2-3-1. Using same ideas as “CM”s for “DM”s can be theoretically correct, but this can make midfield pair a little passive.

Edited September 17, 2021 by zabyl

[Johnny Ace]

7 hours ago, zabyl said:

You can use support roles with hold position if you want a sitter on DM. I personally don’t use a sitter role on one of the two DM slots for increasing forward support. My choices are usually DMs with SVs or REGs.

 

4-2-3-1 deep is a bit different than 4-2-3-1. Using same ideas as “CM”s for “DM”s can be theoretically correct, but this can make midfield pair a little passive.

This is what I was using:

                          AF(A)

IW(S)                AM(S)              IF(S)

 

                 DM(D)      DM(S)

WB(A)     CD(D)       CD(D)     WB(S)

If I was using a fullback on the left I'd be a bit more inclined to let the left DM get a bit more forward but I want to anchor down that side to allow the left WB to get as far forward as he can. If I sent everyone forward my poor CDs would be toast   There's been some nice link up play down the left which leaves the IF free over on the right 

[alerosso]

7 minuti fa, Johnny Ace ha scritto:

This is what I was using:

                          AF(A)

IW(S)                AM(S)              IF(S)

 

                 DM(D)      DM(S)

WB(A)     CD(D)       CD(D)     WB(S)

If I was using a fullback on the left I'd be a bit more inclined to let the left DM get a bit more forward but I want to anchor down that side to allow the left WB to get as far forward as he can. If I sent everyone forward my poor CDs would be toast   There's been some nice link up play down the left which leaves the IF free over on the right 

As stated above, you can use a role with "hold position" there instead of the DMd. He will still cover but will also offer a bit more support going forward. I would also have one more attacking duty in the front four so that you have another runner from behind the striker

[Johnny Ace]

13 minutes ago, alerosso said:

As stated above, you can use a role with "hold position" there instead of the DMd. He will still cover but will also offer a bit more support going forward. I would also have one more attacking duty in the front four so that you have another runner from behind the striker

The only support role that holds position is the DLP(S) & I don't want a playmaker. The DM(D) works as intended 

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi,  

In my current save i've been using the deep version of the 4231 that @Cleoncreated, with only some minor changes.

DLF(a)

W(s)                  AMC(s)                   IF(a)

DM(s)      VOL(a)

WB(a)      CD(d)        CD(d)     WB(s)

GK(d)

Mentality: Positive

TI's: POOD, Counter-Press, Higher D-Line, Press More

PI's: 

AMC(s): take more risk passes

DM(s): Hold Position

The tactic is been working great. I'm playing with Benfica and so far had no problem winning in domestic league.

But recently i play against Porto away, drawn 0-0, but it was out of pure luck. They dominate every aspect of the game.

They play a very pressing 442, and i could just make any decent attack play.

 

Against Porto i used a tactic a bit more defensive.....

DLF(a)

W(s)                  AMC(s)                   IF(a)

DM(d)      VOL(a)

WB(a)      CD(d)        CD(d)     WB(au)

GK(d)

Mentality: Balanced

TI's: POOD, Regroup, Counter-Attack, Higher D-Line, Lower LOE, Press More

PI's: 

AMC(s): take more risk passes

 

But like i said it didn't work. I pressed very high with 4 players and i couldn' play from the back. Half time i decided to drop the POOD instruction, to try to pass more directly to attack but that also didn't work.

So, any sugestions for those harder games, against teams that will press very high?

 

[MadOnion]

I'd imagine with Porto pressing in a 442 they will match your backline? Is your DM dropping deep to offer numerical advantage? Does he have the PPMs to do so?

Give the HB a go or maybe the DLP. An alternative would be to ask your GK to distribute to fullbacks so there's less risk if they lose the ball in not so dangerous areas.

That's where I'd start.

[Contexx]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Hi,  

In my current save i've been using the deep version of the 4231 that @Cleoncreated, with only some minor changes.

DLF(a)

W(s)                  AMC(s)                   IF(a)

DM(s)      VOL(a)

WB(a)      CD(d)        CD(d)     WB(s)

GK(d)

Mentality: Positive

TI's: POOD, Counter-Press, Higher D-Line, Press More

PI's: 

AMC(s): take more risk passes

DM(s): Hold Position

The tactic is been working great. I'm playing with Benfica and so far had no problem winning in domestic league.

But recently i play against Porto away, drawn 0-0, but it was out of pure luck. They dominate every aspect of the game.

They play a very pressing 442, and i could just make any decent attack play.

 

Against Porto i used a tactic a bit more defensive.....

DLF(a)

W(s)                  AMC(s)                   IF(a)

DM(d)      VOL(a)

WB(a)      CD(d)        CD(d)     WB(au)

GK(d)

Mentality: Balanced

TI's: POOD, Regroup, Counter-Attack, Higher D-Line, Lower LOE, Press More

PI's: 

AMC(s): take more risk passes

 

But like i said it didn't work. I pressed very high with 4 players and i couldn' play from the back. Half time i decided to drop the POOD instruction, to try to pass more directly to attack but that also didn't work.

So, any sugestions for those harder games, against teams that will press very high?

 

Oh man, that 442 of theirs is such a pain to play against.  I had them in the Champions League and the way they press high up the pitch and the speed with which their wingers cut inside can be crippling for this formation.  What worked for me was cutting out PoD, increasing the tempo, and defending more narrow as it forces the likes of Consceciao to go outside and try to cross into my packed defense, as opposed to cutting inside and wreaking havoc. I also moved my LoE to "higher" and man-marked their wingbacks in order to prevent their insane overload up the flanks.

 

One thing with 4231 deep is the "other" more conservative DMC really needs to be involved in the build-up, and all too often, if he's on "defend" duty, he simply won't be there to recycle possession or provide an outlet.  I personally use DM on support as opposed to defend, and he actually ends up contributing a lot. When on "defend" or specifically told to hold position, the team ends up being too disjointed.  In your case, you've got the Volante on attack, which is very risky and means he ends up being all over the place. While a DM on defend may shield the back four, it seems he's not quite available as a feasable part of what might be a very potent attack, starting from two deep and potentially creative midfielders.  For this role, I generally use a more physical type of natural DLP - attributes and preferred moves that suit a playmaker, without the actual title. In my case I am lucky to have Nicholo Rovella, who is, apart from lacking areal ability, perfect for the role. When using a more of a "destroyer" or even "water-carrier" type, what often happens is he my attacks become too dull - especially if using the Volante on attack duty where he'll often get very high up the pitch.  In a previous season I was using a "natural" anchorman with the DM(d) role, and he ended up being responsible for so many attacks breaking down through missing out on opportunities, playing the safely stupid and ultimately dangerous passes.

At some point, you end up realizing that what you've got are not just two defensive midfielders in the center, but a huge advantage in terms of being afforded more chances to be adventurous. 

[zabyl]

3 saat önce, Keyzer Soze said:

Hi,  

In my current save i've been using the deep version of the 4231 that @Cleoncreated, with only some minor changes.

DLF(a)

W(s)                  AMC(s)                   IF(a)

DM(s)      VOL(a)

WB(a)      CD(d)        CD(d)     WB(s)

GK(d)

Mentality: Positive

TI's: POOD, Counter-Press, Higher D-Line, Press More

PI's: 

AMC(s): take more risk passes

DM(s): Hold Position

The tactic is been working great. I'm playing with Benfica and so far had no problem winning in domestic league.

But recently i play against Porto away, drawn 0-0, but it was out of pure luck. They dominate every aspect of the game.

They play a very pressing 442, and i could just make any decent attack play.

 

Against Porto i used a tactic a bit more defensive.....

DLF(a)

W(s)                  AMC(s)                   IF(a)

DM(d)      VOL(a)

WB(a)      CD(d)        CD(d)     WB(au)

GK(d)

Mentality: Balanced

TI's: POOD, Regroup, Counter-Attack, Higher D-Line, Lower LOE, Press More

PI's: 

AMC(s): take more risk passes

 

But like i said it didn't work. I pressed very high with 4 players and i couldn' play from the back. Half time i decided to drop the POOD instruction, to try to pass more directly to attack but that also didn't work.

So, any sugestions for those harder games, against teams that will press very high?

 

I use this for 4-2-3-1 deep:

I don't use play out of defence because "DM"s are already deep when building from defence. Take short kicks to "CB"s and "FB"s helps build-up against high pressing sides.

I use shorter passing, higher DL/LOE, higher pressing. prevent short GK distribution on positive. Against very defensive sides I change SVs to SVa, remove DM's hold position PI, add counter-press, add roam to APs-AFa and add dribble more to AFa. Against stronger sides I drop to balanced mentality, change WBa to WBs, AFa to DLFa, remove shorter passing, higher pressing, higher DL/LOE and add counter.

 

This tactic naturally uses left side more to isolate RW. But with AP's central positioning, it can make players free on both sides without using focus play. I see that using focus play decreases these movements to certain areas so I don't use it with this tactic when I use an AP on AMC.

Edited September 17, 2021 by zabyl

[bosque]

hace 7 minutos, zabyl dijo:

Take short kicks to "CB"s and "FB"s helps build-up against high pressing sides.

This is interesting. How does starting play with your defense helps when a team is pressing you high? Doesn't that gives a lot of pressure to your defenders on the ball?

[zabyl]

1 dakika önce, bosque said:

This is interesting. How does starting play with your defense helps when a team is pressing you high? Doesn't that gives a lot of pressure to your defenders on the ball?

I would like to show a screenshot of this. But I'm not playing right now. 6 players are deep enough to bypass opposition's high press. "DM"s position themselves closer enough to give a rescue pass option.